If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

Abusers do have agency to to choose, yes. “Unfortunate but necessary”? No, I wouldn’t put it like that at all.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

The crime/insanity associated with sexually abused children is reprehensible and should be punished. As one of the Republican candidates for President expressed last night in the debate…the death penalty should be on the table for those monsters that commit these atrocities.

You have crossed the line, Res Ipsa.

Regards,
MG

Why is God not a monster for permitting children to be physically and sexually abused? Is the freedom to abuse children necessary to the plan of salvation or not? If it's not, why permit the torture of little children? Is this going to be another example of your God who is so powerful that he can twiddle the knobs of the fundamental forces of the universe but too weak to protect innocent children from pedophiles?

Your pivot to politics is a red herring. My statement had nothing to do with what society should do with those convicted of abusing children. It had to do with child abuse as being a necessary part of your God's plan of salvation.

Free agency is an integral part of the Plan of Salvation. Would you have it any other way? If so, lay it out for us.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This is your stuff, not mine. Built off of the strawman caracature you’ve attempted to build.

You clearly have some issues.

Regards,
MG

Nope. It's straightforward inferences from your own words and those of your prophets. If, as you contend, the plan of salvation requires that the plates be unavailable for an evidence based investigation…

Yes, for reasons stated in this thread.

…why doesn't it follow that the COJCOLDS cannot be unambiguously good for exactly the same reason. Please try to avoid ad hoc special pleading.

I don’t see an exact corollary and/or association here.

As it is, my argument is about the importance of the plates to the restoration narrative. You’re taking things off in other directions.

Let’s stick to the topic rather than getting into child abuse, etc.

I’ve already made my thoughts known in regards to the plates now going on for many a page.

I’m not sure that I have much else to say. Except to again acknowledge that the critics are under obligation to take whatever path necessary to distort and/or do away with the accepted understanding of the part the plates played in the restoration of the gospel.

It may be time to wrap things up?

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

I’ve already made my thoughts known in regards to the plates now going on for many a page.

I’m not sure that I have much else to say. Except to again acknowledge that the critics are under obligation to take whatever path necessary to distort and/or do away with the accepted understanding of the part the plates played in the restoration of the gospel.

It may be time to wrap things up?

Regards,
MG

MG, I think your thought of Monet has some value. One can look at small area of his paintings and see only splotches of color, it is in seeing the relationship of many parts that a meaningful representation takes shape. In that way it is perfectly reasonable of you to consider the value of the church ,hope from faith,and community which you see as important aspects of what the plates are.

The picture is larger and to understand how the small spots make a whole one should consider all the portions not just a selection of them. There are many good things about the church but it is not without negatives.I do not think the matter of relating the Book of Mormon to what is known of the history of the new world is a minor thing.It could be considered that faith may have something more to do with seeking truth and understanding and not simply how strongly a person desires a particular story to be true.

I am sure that this observation will not decide the plates question. It is something that many considerations touch on so people cannot decide how they relate to it at the drop of a hat.

[Res Ipsa]

MG 2.0's 100% ad hominem attack is his standard MO when faced with an argument to which he cannot respond with reason or evidence.

Again, take a breath, Res Ipsa. You are taking something as being personal that is a figment of your ‘church induced’ frenzied mind.

I have not attacked you. Slow down…breathe deeply…and pull yourself together.

In fact, if you go back and read my posts on this thread I’ve been trying to show understanding and acceptance for your views and those of others.

You’ve again crossed the line by making false allegations.

Time for an apology?

Regards,
MG

Was this not you?

In fact, I would go as far as to say that you guys are a bit whacko in even looking at this as a possibility. That being said, it then comes as no surprise that some of the other things expressed on one topic or another are also ‘off’.

That's a straightforward ad hominem attack. It has nothing to do with whether I personally feel attacked. It's simply an invalid response to an argument. I made an argument. You responded with two fallacies: (1) Personal incredulity (I can't believe you would say that) and (2) Questioning my sanity rather than addressing the argument. My claim that you use the latter as a standard tactic is well demonstrated in any thread in which you are strongly pressed on any given claim.

And, of course, it wasn't just once. It was several times:

You clearly have some issues.

Wow. You are not only playing lawyer, you are acting as judge and jury.

Apparently I’ve really gotten under your skin.

Take a deep breath, Res Ipsa.

You clearly have some issues.

Again, take a breath, Res Ipsa.

You are taking something as being personal that is a figment of your ‘church induced’ frenzied mind.

Slow down…breathe deeply…and pull yourself together.

You’ve again crossed the line by making false allegations.

Time for an apology?

Ad hominem attack is a 100% accurate description of each of those statements. None of them address the substance of my claim or argument that preceded it. Rather than address what I claimed or argued, you responded by attacking me -- my sanity, my credibility, my emotional control, my honesty, etc. And I absolutely will not apologize for stating that this type of response is a pattern with you when pressed on some point or other, because it is absolutely what you do. It very well could be such an ingrained habit that you don't even think about it.

By suggesting that these statements aren't ad hominem attacks, you're really moving into gaslighting territory.

I point them out, and will continue to do so for several reasons. First, this tactic is an attempt to change the subject from the substance of what was being discussed to alleged personal defects of the other person -- a way to avoid responding to a claim or argument. Second, it attempts to put the other party on the defensive about aspects of their personhood. That's toxic as hell, but is bad behavior that seems to have permeated LDS apologetic discourse. It's straight out of the abusive personality playbook. I don't think you are an abusive personality, but using their tools is nothing to aspire to. Third, it's a "tell" that the person has no substantive response to an argument.

My point is not that you are bad person for attacking me. My point is that you are using a nasty distraction tactic to avoid the substance of what I am saying. If I'm making a bad or fallacious argument, all you have to do is point it out and tell me why it is bad or fallacious. Then I can address a substantive criticism of my argument. I may have made bad arguments in this thread, but you'll never convince me or anyone else of that unless you respond to the substance.

My suggestion: back up to my argument about the COJCOLDS and Satan and tell me why I'm wrong. If you don't understand the point, Gad explained it perfectly. Re-engage with the substance.

As an aside, I don't recall any attempt on your part to demonstrate any understanding of my arguments in this thread. Can you accurately summarize my position? I don't expect agreement or acceptance.

[Marcus]

Wasn't it MG 2.0 who argued that sexually abused children are an unfortunate but necessary consequence of giving the abusers the free agency to abuse?

Abusers do have agency to to choose, yes. “Unfortunate but necessary”? No, I wouldn’t put it like that at all.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

The crime/insanity associated with sexually abused children is reprehensible and should be punished. As one of the Republican candidates for President expressed last night in the debate…the death penalty should be on the table for those monsters that commit these atrocities.

You have crossed the line, Res Ipsa.

Regards,
MG

He didn't put words in your mouth.

From a thread titled"Member of local Bishopric jailed on sex abuse charges"

Oh you heathens are all the same, What you are failing to take in to account is that his Bishop received a spiritual witness from God to have this man called as his counselor.

He may have. He may not have. If he did, then it goes to show...and not for the first time in history...that God calls upon the weak things of the world in order to accomplish His purposes. If, as the first article seems to be saying, the fellow may not have been in the Bishopric at the time of his misbehavior then it might be that the calling brought him to a position/place of being 'outed'. That's a good thing. As long, of course, as he hasn't been misbehaving in the meantime. It's hard to know all of the variables/factors involved. The fact is, it's good that he was caught and that he now has a chance to repent of his past misbehaviors.

God had obviously already taken this man's pedophilia history into account prior to sending that special witness to the Bishop.

That's a possibility, if indeed the counselor was called through direct inspiration/revelation. That doesn't always happen, I would guess.
But again, if he was called through inspiration, it might be that God...knowing the end from the beginning...knew how things were going to pan out. And the fact is, this man now has been brought to justice and also has an opportunity to repent. Not to say that there hasn't been damage done along the way...

...cuz God does not lie.

I think we can agree on this.

Regards,
MG

[Bolding added]

[drumdude]

Mormons can really rationalize anything.

You start with the assumption the church is true and do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to support it.

[MG 2.0]

You clearly have some issues.

Wow. You are not only playing lawyer, you are acting as judge and jury.

Apparently I’ve really gotten under your skin.

Take a deep breath, Res Ipsa.

You clearly have some issues.

Again, take a breath, Res Ipsa.

You are taking something as being personal that is a figment of your ‘church induced’ frenzied mind.

Slow down…breathe deeply…and pull yourself together.

You’ve again crossed the line by making false allegations.

Time for an apology?

Ad hominem attack is a 100% accurate description of each of those statements.

I disagree. I do think you are being a bit hypersensitive, however.

As I said earlier I would prefer that the topic of the thread be focused on. You have purposefully gone off on other tangents that are not directly related even though you are attempting to draw a direct correlation.

The plates are KEY to the restoration. As I’ve outlined during the breadth and depth of this thread. You can either agree or disagree, that’s fine.

And yes, I know that you folks are unable to accept the plates as being real at this point in time without them being presented as a lead story on CNN.

I just don’t think that’s the way the Lord works. Faith is a key component as we live in mortality. We truly have the opportunity to make REAL choices. You’ve made yours.

And that’s the way it is.

By the way, I’d be interested in your views on how you would provide for a world in which there was no child abuse or other atrocities. I asked earlier but I don’t think you made any comment. But an answer to this question might better be laid out in detail on a new thread.

You seemed to blame these things directly on God. If so, I can see why it might be difficult for you to believe in an all knowing and wise creator.

And thus, the inability to accept the possibility of God communicating through scripture, including scripture meant for us in our day.

Best wishes.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

There's no court here other than the court of opinion, where we all get to have and express them. Your avoidance of the question and pivot to yet more ad hominem attack is noted. Try taking your own advice and addressing my argument.

This is your issue. You are the one that needs to work it out. Not me.

Regards,
MG

What issue? Given your constant chiding of other people for being closed minded, why is the possibility that you've been deceived by the deceiver off the table? If it's impossible that you've been deceived, how does that square with your claim that withholding the plates is necessary to permit the free agency necessary for the plan of salvation? Are abused children a necessary part of the plan of salvation? These are exactly the kind of Monet style questions you say you want to talk about -- how everything fits together into a picture. If you claim that the existence of plates was a necessary part of the plan of salvation and the subsequent holding of the plates is a necessary part of the plan of salvation, then why are you unwilling to discuss in general the subject of what is and is not necessary to the plan of salvation?

[Res Ipsa]

Mormons can really rationalize anything.

You start with the assumption the church is true and do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to support it.

People can really rationalize anything. I can't tell whether it's a bug or a feature. Maybe both.

[Res Ipsa]

Ad hominem attack is a 100% accurate description of each of those statements.

I disagree. I do think you are being a bit hypersensitive, however.

As I said earlier I would prefer that the topic of the thread be focused on. You have purposefully gone off on other tangents that are not directly related even though you are attempting to draw a direct correlation.

The plates are KEY to the restoration. As I’ve outlined during the breadth and depth of this thread. You can either agree or disagree, that’s fine.

And yes, I know that you folks are unable to accept the plates as being real at this point in time without them being presented as a lead story on CNN.

I just don’t think that’s the way the Lord works. Faith is a key component as we live in mortality. We truly have the opportunity to make REAL choices. You’ve made yours.

And that’s the way it is.

By the way, I’d be interested in your views on how you would provide for a world in which there was no child abuse or other atrocities. I asked earlier but I don’t think you made any comment. But an answer to this question might better be laid out in detail on a new thread.

You seemed to blame these things directly on God. If so, I can see why it might be difficult for you to believe in an all knowing and wise creator.

And thus, the inability to accept the possibility of God communicating through scripture, including scripture meant for us in our day.

Best wishes.

Regards,
MG

Man, I wonder if Jodi treats ad hominem addiction?

"I disagree" doesn't cut it. Do you disagree that what I quoted does not address the substance of the comment that precedes it? Do you disagree that the subject of all those quotes is me rather than the subject being discussed? Do you disagree that those comments are directed "to the man"? Do you disagree that those comments are negative comments about a person as opposed to addressing the subject being discussed? Do you disagree that these type of comments are common tools of abusive personalities?

What your answer tells me is you have no substantive response beyond Nu' uh. Okies.

This hypersensitivity you are talking about is pure projection. I'm not the one who thinks I'm owed an apology. The tactic is just more of the same. You can't respond to the substance of what I've said, so you try and change the subject to me as a person. I'm labeling the tactic for the reasons I've listed, but I'm not going play the expected role of defending my honor (or whatever). You do the ad hom thing, I'm going to label it, unless you can articulate a persuasive argument that the label is incorrect.

But look at you:

You CAN’T have real plates.

NO MATTER WHAT.

Real plates would change your whole worldview.

Right?

If plates, then God. And the God of Mormonism no less.

It’s a bit frustrating over time as I see a ... …narrow trajectory…on each topic that comes up.

For me, it fits in…generally…with an expanded view of the cosmos/meaning/purpose.

Sometimes, admittedly, the details can be messy. But so was Monet, in a sense.

In the larger picture, to my understanding of the world around me, the plates and angels make more sense than most of the other stuff out there. Including agnosticism and/or atheism. Although I can see how folks can move that direction.

As I said earlier I would prefer that the topic of the thread be focused on. You have purposefully gone off on other tangents that are not directly related even though you are attempting to draw a direct correlation.

The plates are KEY to the restoration. As I’ve outlined during the breadth and depth of this thread. You can either agree or disagree, that’s fine.

I'm tempted to suggest that you pick a lane. But pick a state would be more appropriate. I'm doing exactly what you talked about in your Monet analogy: I took a claim of yours that is central to your claims about the plates and zoomed out to see how it fits "the larger picture" as you put it. You argued that your beliefs about the plates and angels made more sense in the larger picture, while also complaining that the rest of us were taking to narrow a view. So I responded to your claim by testing just how your claims fit into the larger picture. If that's a tangent, it's your tangent, not mine.

But again, you avoid the substance of my argument: this time, by complaining about process.

I just add this nonsense to the pile of evidence for my argument: what you do here is take whatever position you think supports the church on a specific issue at a specific time without any thought to the larger picture at all. And when people challenge you on the ramifications of your ad hoc claims, you shift to ad hominem or process issues. Your disparate positions on the scattering of issues you've made claims about don't hold together and form any picture other than the one I've already described.

I don't recall you asking me about how I would be God. I'm not and I wouldn't. Here is something your God is supposed to have said:

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

I'm taking your God at his word. Things that are impossible for me are possible for God. All things. That's what the God said.

Including creating a world where people do not physically and sexually abuse children.

Taking you at your word, your God is all knowing and wise. So, he has the power to do all things and with his complete knowledge he creates a world where children are physically and sexually abused, some to the point of torture and some to the point of death. Why should we not view his choice to create a world where such things are possible as anything but evil? It's not a matter of choosing who to blame. Abusing children is evil. Why isn't choosing to create a world where the creator knows children will be abused, tortured and killed just as evil?

I have no "problem" at all with the general concept of a wise and all knowing God or revelation over time. If there is such a God, I don't think it's your God.